National Credit Regulator v Melmoth Masiza Finance CC t/a Masiza Finance (NCT/127143/2019/57(1)) [2019] ZANCT 118 (7 June 2019)

National Credit Regulator v Melmoth Masiza Finance CC t/a Masiza Finance (NCT/127143/2019/57(1)) [2019] ZANCT 118 (7 June 2019)

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's delay in filing its answering affidavit was not due to negligence or tardiness and that the degree of lateness was not excessive. The Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including the complexity and volume of the Applicant's application and the Respondent's personal circumstances. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application, and there was no prejudice to the Applicant in granting condonation. Conversely, the Respondent would suffer material prejudice if condonation were refused, as it would be denied the opportunity to respond to serious allegations. The Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and that it...

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 118
Parties
Applicant: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: Melmoth Masiza Finance CC t/a Masiza Finance
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2019
Case Number
NCT/127143/2019/57(1)
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit is granted.
Judges
P A Beck
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Credit Provider Regulation, National Credit Act, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Credit Provider Regulation National Credit Act Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Credit Regulator

Applicant

Melmoth Masiza Finance CC t/a Masiza Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Ruling on Condonation for Late Filing of Answering Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's application for condonation for the late filing of its answering affidavit should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the delay was excessive and justified.
  3. 3 Whether granting condonation would prejudice either party.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Respondent's delay in filing its answering affidavit was not due to negligence or tardiness and that the degree of lateness was not excessive. The Respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, including the complexity and volume of the Applicant's application and the Respondent's personal circumstances. The Applicant did not oppose the condonation application, and there was no prejudice to the Applicant in granting condonation. Conversely, the Respondent would suffer material prejudice if condonation were refused, as it would be denied the opportunity to respond to serious allegations. The Tribunal concluded that good cause was shown and that it...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Respondent's answering affidavit is granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the Respondent’s answering affidavit is condoned.
  • The Applicant must file its replying affidavit within 10 days of the issuing of this judgment and file same on the Tribunal.